Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways · 2008. 8. 23. · Pavement Condition Rating Process...

Pavement Condition ofNew York’s Highways

2002

New York State Department of Transportation

iPavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

Preface

The New York State Department ofTransportation annually conducts asurvey of State Highway pavementconditions which provides a consistentsource of pavement data for New York’shighway network. The survey results area primary input to the Department'sPavement Management System as wellas to the development of the pavementportion of the Department's Capital andMaintenance Programs.

Included in this report are various tablesand figures which describe networkconditions over time, by Region andCounty, and by pavement type. Alsoincluded are summaries of network-levelneeds, in terms of mileage requiring aparticular treatment strategy and statisticson the various quality control proceduresused to assess survey accuracy andconsistency. It should be emphasized thatthe condition survey is conducted in May

and June and represents the condition ofthe system at that point in time. Theimpact of pavement improvement projectscompleted after the survey are thereforenot reflected in the condition summaries.

For additional information on the contentsof this report, please contact:

Pavement Management ServicesNew York State Dept. of Transportation

W. A. Harriman State CampusBldg. 7A, Room 506

Albany, New York 12232(518) 457-1965

ii Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

iiiPavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

Executive Summary

State System Condition

The results of the 2002 pavementcondition survey show the percent of poorpavements on the State Highway Systemdecreased to 5.6% this year, againachieving the lowest level since thewindshield survey began in 1981. Thecurrent percent poor is down from 6.2%last year and continues the steadyimprovement from a high of 14.1% in1993.

Pavements in the other conditioncategories remained about the same aslast year, with good and excellentpavement holding at 67.8%, and fairpavement increasing slightly to 26.6%

from 25.9% last year. The overall averagepavement condition rating increased to7.00 from 6.98.

Condition by Region

The 2002 survey shows Regions 2, 5 and11 have the fewest poor pavements,ranging from 2.3% to 3.3%. Regions 5, 8and 10 remain in the best overallcondition with average condition ratings of7.24, 7.13 and 7.12 respectively. Regions4, 5, 7 and 9 made the most improvementover last year in reducing poorpavements. Region 7 has the lowestoverall condition at 6.70 followed byRegion 6 at 6.84 and Region 4 at 6.91.

iv Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

Table of Contents

Page

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

List of Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Pavement Condition Rating Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

The Surface Condition Rating Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Dominant Distress Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Pavement Condition Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Extent of System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

State Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Condition Trends - Statewide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Surface Condition by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Surface Condition by County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Surface Condition by Pavement Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

National Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Pavement Roughness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Network-Level Pavement Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Treatment Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Pavement Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Survey Quality Assurance Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Annual Training Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Double Scoring Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Statistical Measures & Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Percent of Ratings Within +/- 1 Scale Point . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Average Rating Error . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21Absolute Rating Difference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

vPavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

List of Tables and Figures

Page

Table 1: Touring Route System 2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 2: Surface Condition, 1997 - 2002, State Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 1: State Highway Condition Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Table 3: State Highway System - 2002 Surface Condition by Region . . . . . . . . . . 9

Table 4: State Highway System - Regional Trends 1998 - 2002Average Condition Ratings and Percent Below 6, Poor Pavement . . 10

Table 5: State Highway System 2002 County Rankings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Table 6: State Highway System 2002 Pavement Type and Rating Category . . . 14

Table 7: New York State National Highway System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Table 8: National Highway System: State Highways Only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 9: National Highway System: NYS Thruway Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Table 10: Interstates and Principal Arterials by Roughness Category . . . . . . . . 18

Table 11: State Highway System - 2002 Lane-Miles by Treatment Category . . . 19

Table 12: 2002 Double Scoring Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 2: 2002 Double Scoring Results - Average Scoring Error by Region . . . . 23

vi Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

Pavement Condition ofNew York’s Highways

2002

2 Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

Pavement Condition of New York's Highways: 2002

Introduction

The New York State Department ofTransportation annually conducts anassessment of the pavement condition ofthe New York State Highway network.The survey data is collected by regionalrating teams who are trained in the use ofcarefully developed photographic scalesof pavement conditions. Condition data iscollected for both the pavement surfaceand for specific distress symptoms calleddominant distress. The survey isconducted during the late spring and earlysummer with the results supplied back tothe regions during the early fall.

The procedures used for survey qualityassurance are described later in thisreport.

This report presents a summary of theresults of the 2002 survey effort. Unlessotherwise noted, the various tables andfigures reflect data for the State HighwaySystem only. These are facilities underthe jurisdiction of the New York StateDepartment of Transportation, includingNYSDOT Parkways and State-ownedservice roads. Ramp mileage is notincluded.

Pavement Condition Rating Process

The pavement condition of New York'shighways is determined by two measures:the surface condition rating and thedominant distress indicator. Thesemeasures and the associated ratingprocess are described as follows:

The Surface Condition Rating Scale

The surface condition rating scale is a 1to 10 point scale based on the prevalenceof a surface-related pavement distress

(e.g., cracking). The Pavement ConditionRating Manual is the tool used to ensureconsistency in obtaining the surfacecondition ratings. The manual includesphotographs of each scale point anddescriptions of the frequency and severityof distress associated with each scalepoint. Each photograph was selected bya panel of Department pavement expertsbased on the general treatments requiredby the pavement condition represented.There are three scales, one each for:

Pavement Condition Rating Process

3Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways: 2002

! Rigid (Portland Cement Concrete[PCC])

! Overlaid (asphalt overlaid on PCCslabs), and

! Flexible (full depth asphalt) pavementstructures.

When in the field, the survey teamsdetermine the surface condition rating bycomparing the surface condition of thehighway section surveyed to thephotographic scale for the appropriatepavement type. The scale point whichmost closely represents the condition ofthe highway evaluated is the surfacerating for that section.

Dominant Distress Measures

A dominant distress is defined as aspecific distress symptom, observable atposted speeds, which will trigger atreatment category different from thetreatment category based on the surface

rating alone. For example, if a Portlandcement concrete pavement is rated witha surface score of "6", the treatmentcategory assigned on the basis of thesurface rating alone is correctivemaintenance. However, if this pavementwere faulted (i.e., step formations atjoints), a treatment more costly thancorrective maintenance is required.Therefore, faulting qualifies as adominant distress for PCC pavementstructures. Dominant distresses weredetermined for each pavement type bythe panel of experts, and are shown inthe following table:


Dominant Distress by Pavement Type

Pavement Type Dominant Distress Frequency Measure

RigidFaulting presence only

Spalling (Isolated) occurs infrequently over section(less than 20%)

Spalling (General) occurs over most of the section(more than 20%)

OverlaidAlligator Cracking(Isolated)

occurs infrequently over section(less than 20%)

Alligator Cracking(General)

occurs over most of the section(more than 20%)

Widening Dropoff presence only

FlexibleAlligator Cracking(Isolated)

occurs infrequently over section(less than 20%)

Alligator Cracking(General)

occurs over most of the section(more than 20%)

Special Note on Alligator Cracking

Alligator Cracking as a dominant distressis a load-related, fatigue-type distressindicating a weakness in the pavement

structure. Raters will identify AlligatorCracking as a Dominant Distress only ifthe cracking appears in the wheelpath ofan Overlaid or Flexible Pavement.

Pavement Condition Survey Results

Extent of System

Table 1 presents the jurisdictionalclassification in lane-miles for both Stateand non-State Highways which comprisethe Touring Route System. About 20-30lane miles are added to the TouringRoute System each year, reaching

41,134 lane miles in 2002. It should benoted that mileage under construction atthe time of the survey, which can beseveral hundred miles, are not included inany of the condition summaries presentedin this report.

State Highway System



Condition Trends - Statewide

Table 2 and Figure 1 illustrate thestatewide trends in pavement surfacecondition for State-owned highways from1998 through 2002. Pavement conditionshave been improving since 1994 as aresult of a strong capital program workingon the poor pavements and anaggressive preventive maintenanceprogram keeping good pavements ingood condition. Poor pavementscontinued to decline in 2002 for the ninthconsecutive year, reaching an all-time lowof 5.6%.

Pavements in the other conditioncategories remained about the same aslast year, with good and excellentpavement holding at 67.8%, and fairpavement increasing slightly to 26.6%from 25.9% last year. The overall averagepavement condition rating increased to7.00 from 6.98.

Surface Condition by Region

Table 3 presents the distribution ofsurface condition ratings by region for2002, as well as the percentage andnumber of lane-miles in each conditioncategory. The lowest percentage of poor

pavement is found in Regions 11 (2.3%),2 (3.1%) and 5 (3.3%). The data in Table3 also shows Regions 5 and 3 having thegreatest percentage of excellentpavement at 14.7% and 14.3%respectively.

Table 4 presents the average conditionratings and percent poor pavement byregion for the years 1998-2002. The datashows that six regions (Regions 2, 3, 4, 5,7 and 9) showed improvement in averagecondition this past year while the otherslost some ground on this measure.

Pavements in Regions 5, 8 and 10 remainin the best overall condition with averagecondition ratings of 7.24, 7.13 and 7.12.Region 7 has the lowest overall conditionat 6.70 followed by Region 6 at 6.84 andRegion 4 at 6.91. Region 9 showed thelargest increase in average score,improving by 0.23 ratings points.

With respect to the percent of poorpavement, most regions showedimprovement. Regions 4, 5, 7 and 9showed the greatest reductions in poorpavement, while Region 10 had the mostpavements slip into the poor category.Region 9 has the highest percent of poorpavement at 9.7%, but also made thelargest reduction in poor pavement of2.8%.


Table 1

2002 Touring Route System

Total Lane-Miles by Region and Jurisdiction

Rated Under Construction TouringRoute

Region State Non-State Total State Non-State System1 2 3

1 4,761 223 4,984 42 3 5,029

2 3,000 51 3,051 5 0 3,056

3 3,446 170 3,616 137 5 3,758

4 3,968 358 4,326 107 0 4,433

5 3,719 463 4,182 49 10 4,241

6 2,573 32 2,605 20 0 2,625

7 3,409 112 3,521 108 2 3,631

8 5,144 445 5,589 195 5 5,789

9 3,793 147 3,940 104 0 4,044

10 2,534 191 2,725 177 0 2,902

11 791 782 1,573 34 19 1,626

State 37,138 2,974 40,112 978 44 41,134

Notes: 1. “State" Includes Interstates State Highways, State-DOT Parkways, and State-owned service roads 2. “Non State" Includes Non-DOT Parkways, local roads, institutional roads and authority mileage on the

Touring Route System, but not the NYS Thruway. 3. “Touring Route System" does not include NYS Thruway mileage.


Table 2

Surface Condition, 1998 - 2002State Highway System

ConditionLevel

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

LaneMiles % Lane

Miles % LaneMiles % Lane

Miles % LaneMiles %

Excellent 10 1,041 2.8 951 2.6 846 2.2 508 1.3 1,108 3.0

9 4,422 12.0 4,075 11.0 3,834 10.3 3,030 8.1 2,940 7.9

Subtotal 5,463 14.8 5,026 13.6 4,680 12.5 3,538 9.4 4,048 10.9

Good 8 5,013 13.5 6,127 16.5 5,755 15.4 6,188 16.5 4,952 13.3

7 12,740 34.5 13,706 37.0 15,640 41.9 15,747 42.0 16,174 43.6

Subtotal 17,753 48.0 19,833 53.5 21,395 57.3 21,935 58.5 21,126 56.9

Fair 6 10,318 27.9 9,233 24.9 8,720 23.3 9,711 25.9 9,888 26.6

Subtotal 10,318 27.9 9,233 24.9 8,720 23.3 9,711 25.9 9,888 26.6

Poor 5 3,293 8.9 2,810 7.6 2,424 6.5 2,220 5.9 1,990 5.4

4 151 0.4 163 0.4 143 0.4 100 0.3 86 0.2

3 0 0.0 1 0.0 2 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0

2 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Subtotal 3,445 9.3 2,974 8.0 2,569 6.9 2,321 6.2 2,076 5.6

Total 36,979 100.0 37,066 100.0 37,364 100.0 37,505 100.0 37,138 100.0

Avg Score 6.99 7.05 7.05 6.98 7.00


Table 3

State Highway System2002 Surface Condition by Region in Lane-Miles

RegionSurface Condition Ratings

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total1 0 0 0 27 427 1,165 1,816 894 396 36 4,761

2 0 0 0 9 85 736 1,606 321 165 78 3,000

3 0 0 0 4 141 1,169 1,085 552 482 13 3,446

4 0 0 0 27 357 1,147 1,453 480 420 84 3,968

5 0 0 0 4 120 834 1,421 793 442 105 3,719

6 0 0 0 0 122 942 993 267 242 7 2,573

7 0 0 0 10 190 1,690 872 293 294 60 3,409

8 0 0 0 1 205 942 2,945 455 208 388 5,144

9 0 0 0 0 219 836 2,061 177 193 307 3,793

10 0 0 0 4 106 236 1,577 492 89 30 2,534

11 0 0 0 0 18 191 344 229 9 0 791

State 0 0 0 86 1,990 9,888 16,173 4,953 2,940 1,108 37,138

Percentage Lane Miles

Region Poor Fair Good Excellent AvgCond Region Poor Fair Good Excellent Total1-5 6 7-8 9-10 1-5 6 7-8 9-10

1 9.5% 24.5% 56.9% 9.1% 6.94 1 454 1,165 2,710 432 4,761

2 3.1% 24.5% 64.2% 8.1% 6.98 2 94 736 1,927 243 3,000

3 4.2% 33.9% 47.5% 14.4% 7.03 3 145 1,169 1,637 495 3,446

4 9.7% 28.9% 48.7% 12.7% 6.91 4 384 1,147 1,933 504 3,968

5 3.3% 22.4% 59.5% 14.7% 7.24 5 124 834 2,214 547 3,719

6 4.7% 36.6% 49.0% 9.7% 6.84 6 122 942 1,260 249 2,573

7 5.9% 49.6% 34.2% 10.4% 6.70 7 200 1,690 1,165 354 3,409

8 4.0% 18.3% 66.1% 11.6% 7.13 8 206 942 3,400 596 5,144

9 5.8% 22.0% 59.0% 13.2% 7.06 9 219 836 2,238 500 3,793

10 4.3% 9.3% 81.6% 4.7% 7.12 10 110 236 2,069 119 2,534

11 2.3% 24.1% 72.4% 1.1% 7.03 11 18 191 573 9 791

State 5.6% 26.6% 56.9% 10.9% 7.00 State 2,076 9,888 21,126 4,048 37,138


Table 4

State Highway SystemRegional Trends 1998-2002

Average Condition Ratings

Region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

1 6.86 6.92 6.87 6.95 6.94

2 7.10 7.22 7.08 6.95 6.98

3 7.22 7.34 7.27 7.02 7.03

4 6.94 7.06 6.95 6.84 6.91

5 6.89 7.02 7.16 7.10 7.24

6 6.91 6.76 6.91 6.94 6.84

7 6.59 6.70 6.78 6.63 6.70

8 7.26 7.30 7.43 7.20 7.13

9 6.72 6.85 6.81 6.83 7.06

10 7.53 7.35 7.22 7.33 7.12

11 6.81 6.65 6.79 7.08 7.03

State 6.99 7.05 7.05 6.98 7.00

Percent Below 6, Poor Pavement

Region 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

1 11.8% 11.8% 11.1% 9.2% 9.5%

2 5.9% 4.1% 4.2% 3.3% 3.1%

3 5.4% 2.7% 1.4% 5.1% 4.2%

4 11.0% 12.5% 11.6% 12.5% 9.7%

5 9.2% 7.4% 7.3% 4.9% 3.3%

6 9.7% 9.1% 7.2% 4.6% 4.7%

7 14.2% 13.0% 9.4% 7.2% 5.9%

8 3.7% 2.8% 2.8% 3.6% 4.0%

9 17.4% 11.0% 7.9% 7.2% 5.8%

10 4.2% 5.5% 5.6% 2.9% 4.3%

11 8.1% 7.7% 4.8% 2.8% 2.3%

State 9.3% 8.0% 6.9% 6.2% 5.6%



Surface Condition by County

Tables 5A and 5B rank the counties in theState by average surface condition andpercent poor for 2002. Richmond Countyhas the highest average condition rating(7.72), followed by Seneca (7.54) andWayne (7.38). New York, Richmond,Queens and Kings Counties all report nopoor pavement. Other counties with verylow percent poor are Seneca (0.1%),Jefferson (0.3%), Niagara (0.4%),Tompkins (0.6%) and Rockland andOtsego (both 1.1%). Franklin County hasthe lowest average surface condition at6.37, with Clinton at 6.57 and Essex at6.62. Franklin County has the largestpercentage of pavements rated poor at17.5%, followed by Wyoming (15.3%) andEssex (15.5%).

Surface Condition by Pavement Type

Table 6 provides a statewide summary ofcondition by pavement type and ratingcategory. The State System is comprisedof 7.3% rigid (PCC) pavements, 55.5%overlaid (composite) pavements, and37.2% flexible (asphalt) pavements. Ofthe three, rigid pavements are in thelowest condition with 13.9% poor and anaverage surface condition rating of 6.49,which is a slight decline from the 2001

Condition Survey of 12.7% and 6.62,respectively.

National Highway System

Established by ISTEA in 1991, theNational Highway System (NHS) is aninterconnected system of principal arterialroutes serving major population centers,interstate and interregional travel,international border crossings, ports, andother intermodal facilities and nationaldefense needs. The NYS ThruwayAuthority mileage is part of the NHS.

Table 7 through Table 9 present thenumber of lane-miles by pavementcondition category for the NationalHighway System (NHS) by region andjurisdiction. Table 7, which includes theNYS Thruway Authority mileage, showsthat approximately 74.3% of the entireNHS is in good to excellent condition, withonly 5.2% in poor condition. Comparingthe data for State Highways in Table 8 tothe condition data for all State Highwaysin Table 2 shows that conditions on theNHS are slightly better than for all StateHighways. This demonstrates that priorityis being given to pavements on the NHSconsistent with the 21st Century Goal forPavements.


Table 5A

State Highway System2002 County Rankings

by Average Condition and Percent Poor

Region County CountyName

LaneMiles

AverageCondition

StatewideRank

PercentPoor

StatewideRank

1 1 Albany 802 6.91 37 11.5% 53

1 2 Essex 785 6.62 60 15.5% 61

1 3 Greene 415 7.10 19 4.1% 34

1 4 Rensselaer 606 6.73 58 14.5% 58

1 5 Saratoga 725 7.29 6 4.1% 33

1 6 Schenectady 404 7.16 12 4.3% 37

1 7 Warren 562 6.99 31 5.5% 41

1 8 Washington 462 6.84 45 12.2% 55

1 4,761 6.94 9.5%

2 1 Fulton 286 7.15 13 2.5% 18

2 2 Hamilton 360 7.15 14 1.7% 15

2 3 Herkimer 523 6.85 44 5.5% 43

2 4 Madison 383 6.83 48 2.8% 20

2 5 Montgomery 387 7.05 26 5.2% 40

2 6 Oneida 1,061 6.98 32 2.1% 16

2 3,000 6.98 3.2%

3 1 Cayuga 556 7.01 28 6.6% 47

3 2 Cortland 450 6.73 59 1.3% 11

3 3 Onondaga 1,145 6.92 36 5.5% 42

3 4 Oswego 631 7.11 17 5.8% 45

3 5 Seneca 329 7.54 2 0.1% 5

3 6 Tompkins 335 7.17 11 0.6% 8

3 3,446 7.03 4.2%

4 1 Genesee 424 6.90 38 12.0% 54

4 2 Livingston 590 6.99 30 1.7% 14

4 3 Monroe 1,387 6.82 49 14.9% 59

4 4 Ontario 490 6.86 42 4.9% 38

4 5 Orleans 307 6.83 46 3.8% 27

4 6 Wyoming 401 6.79 52 15.3% 60

4 7 Wayne 369 7.38 3 5.6% 44

4 3,968 6.91 9.7%

5 1 Cattaraugus 779 7.08 22 3.5% 24

5 2 Chautauqua 807 7.34 5 3.9% 29

5 3 Erie 1,531 7.22 8 4.2% 35

5 4 Niagara 602 7.37 4 0.4% 7

5 3,719 7.24 3.3%


Table 5B

State Highway System2002 County Rankings

by Average Condition and Percent Poor

Region County CountyName

LaneMiles

AverageCondition

StatewideRank

PercentPoor(< 6 )

StatewideRank

6 1 Allegany 536 6.83 47 2.6% 19

6 2 Chemung 316 6.78 53 14.5% 57

6 3 Schuyler 217 6.77 55 3.7% 26

6 4 Steuben 917 6.86 43 3.8% 28

6 5 Tioga 369 6.96 33 3.4% 23

6 6 Yates 218 6.74 56 3.1% 22

6 2,573 6.84 4.7%

7 1 Clinton 632 6.57 61 1.6% 13

7 2 Franklin 530 6.37 62 17.5% 62

7 3 Jefferson 915 6.87 41 0.3% 6

7 4 Lewis 315 6.74 57 6.5% 46

7 5 St. Lawrence 1,017 6.78 54 7.2% 49

7 3,409 6.70 5.8%

8 1 Columbia 588 7.11 16 6.7% 48

8 2 Dutchess 909 7.21 9 3.9% 32

8 3 Orange 1,009 7.03 27 2.9% 21

8 4 Putnam 347 6.96 34 7.4% 50

8 5 Rockland 252 6.89 40 1.1% 9

8 6 Ulster 608 7.11 18 2.4% 17

8 7 Westchester 1,431 7.25 7 4.2% 36

8 5,144 7.13 4.0%

9 1 Broome 880 7.09 20 12.3% 56

9 2 Chenango 515 7.01 29 9.4% 52

9 3 Delaware 778 7.18 10 3.9% 31

9 4 Otsego 668 6.89 39 1.1% 10

9 5 Schoharie 464 7.06 24 3.6% 25

9 6 Sullivan 488 7.06 25 1.5% 12

9 3,793 7.06 5.8%

10 3 Nassau 975 7.08 21 5.1% 3910 7 Suffolk 1,559 7.14 15 3.9% 30

10 2,534 7.12 4.3%

11 1 Bronx 199 7.07 23 9.0% 51

11 2 Kings 138 6.96 35 0.0% 2

11 4 New York 79 6.81 51 0.0% 3

11 5 Queens 269 6.82 50 0.0% 4

11 6 Richmond 106 7.72 1 0.0% 1

11 791 7.03 2.3%

State 37,138 7.00 --- 5.6% ---


Table 6

State Highway System

2002 Percent Lane-Miles byPavement Type and Rating Category

Category

Poor Fair Good Excellent TotalAvg

CondLaneMiles

%LaneMiles

%LaneMiles

%LaneMiles

%LaneMiles

%

Rigid 375 13.9% 851 31.5% 1,451 53.7% 26 1.0% 2,703 7.3% 6.49

Overlay 1053 5.1% 5,317 25.8% 11,977 58.1% 2,259 11.0% 20,606 55.5% 7.02

Flexible 648 4.7% 3,720 26.9% 7,698 55.7% 1,763 12.7% 13,829 37.2% 7.07

Total 2,076 5.6% 9,888 26.6% 21,126 56.9% 4,048 10.9% 37,138 100.0% 7.00

Table 7

2002 New York State National Highway System*

RegionPoor Fair Good Excellent Total

LaneMilesLane


Miles % LaneMiles %

1 100 6.1% 283 17.2% 1,170 71.1% 93 5.7% 1,646

2 11 1.2% 189 19.4% 688 70.6% 86 8.8% 974

3 26 1.8% 331 23.3% 832 58.7% 227 16.0% 1,416

4 189 12.3% 326 21.2% 847 55.0% 178 11.5% 1,540

5 76 4.2% 444 24.5% 1,078 59.6% 209 11.5% 1,808

6 18 2.2% 224 27.3% 498 60.6% 82 9.9% 822

7 50 5.0% 433 42.7% 396 39.1% 133 13.2% 1,012

8 231 7.9% 431 14.8% 1,941 66.5% 316 10.8% 2,918

9 71 4.9% 343 23.5% 812 55.6% 234 16.0% 1,460

10 54 2.9% 144 7.6% 1,601 85.0% 84 4.5% 1,883

11 18 2.2% 186 23.0% 595 73.7% 9 1.1% 808

State 844 5.2% 3,334 20.5% 10,458 64.2% 1,651 10.1% 16,287

* This table contains NYS Thruway Authority mileage. The LHI mileage is not included in this table. FHWA now requires reportingof IRI only for the HPMS and therefore the LHI was not surveyed in 2002.


Table 8

2002 National Highway System: State Highways Only


LaneMiles

LaneMiles % Lane


Miles %

1 80 6.0% 283 21.2% 883 66.0% 90 6.7% 1,336

2 7 1.3% 189 34.2% 339 61.2% 18 3.2% 553

3 26 2.1% 323 26.8% 677 56.2% 178 14.8% 1,204

4 130 10.6% 326 26.6% 609 49.7% 161 13.1% 1,226

5 55 4.2% 418 31.5% 680 51.3% 171 12.9% 1,324

6 18 2.2% 224 27.3% 498 60.6% 82 9.9% 822

7 50 5.0% 433 42.7% 396 39.1% 133 13.2% 1,012

8 148 6.5% 430 19.0% 1,456 64.3% 230 10.2% 2,264

9 71 4.9% 343 23.5% 812 55.6% 234 16.0% 1,460

10 54 2.9% 144 7.6% 1,601 85.0% 84 4.5% 1,883

11 18 2.3% 186 23.6% 574 73.0% 9 1.2% 787

State 657 4.7% 3,299 23.8% 8,524 61.5% 1,390 10.0% 13,870

Table 9

2002 National Highway System: NYS Thruway Authority


LaneMilesLane


Miles % LaneMiles %

1 20 6.4% 0 0.0% 287 92.5% 3 1.1% 310

2 4 0.9% 0 0.0% 349 82.9% 68 16.1% 421

3 0 0.0% 8 3.8% 155 73.3% 49 23.0% 212

4 59 18.9% 0 0.0% 238 75.6% 17 5.5% 314

5 21 4.4% 26 5.4% 398 82.5% 38 7.9% 483

6 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0

7 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0

8 83 12.7% 1 0.1% 485 74.0% 86 13.1% 655

9 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0

10 0 0 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0

11 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 21 100.0 0 0.0% 21

State 187 7.8% 35 1.4% 1,933 80.0% 261 10.8% 2,416

Pavement Roughness


The Local Highway portion of the NHSwas not surveyed this year becausereporting of the surface conditions of theLocal Highways for HPMS is no longerrequired by FHWA. Instead of reportingsurface condition, HPMS requires onlythe reporting of IRI (InternationalRoughness Index) on the NHS.

Pavement Roughness

A road roughness measurement knownas the International Roughness Index(IRI) was originally developed by theWorld Bank during the 1970's to assessroad conditions in developing countriesfor the purpose of allocating roadimprovement funding. Several morerecent studies have shown that roughroads increase vehicle operating andmaintenance costs, increase fuelconsumption and actually increase thedeterioration rate of the pavement.

Because of the importance of roadsmoothness to the traveling public andthe economic impact of rough roads, IRIhas been adopted by many countries, theFHWA and most states as a standardmeasure of the ride quality of apavement. The units for IRI are inchesper mile (or meters per kilometer); thehigher the value, the greater theroughness. The IRI value is obtained byaccurately measuring the profile of a roadsurface and calculating how a vehicle willrespond to that profile at highway speeds.

Certain types, or wavelengths, ofroughness are mathematically filtered outof the profile, just as the suspension of acar will dampen certain types ofroughness as it travels over the road. Theroughness reflected in the IRI value isbasically the roughness a person wouldfeel while riding in a typical car at 50miles per hour.

The application of IRI adds anotherdimension to assessing road condition. Itis possible for roads with little distress,and therefore relatively good conditionratings, to have rough rides. It is equallypossible to have roads with significantdistress and depending on the type ofdistress, have relatively smooth ridingsurfaces. These distinctions can be usedto further prioritize the application ofavailable funding to achieve the greatestcombined positive impact on the highwaysystem for the benefit of the travelingpublic.

Network-Level Pavement Needs


Table 10 presents the number andpercent of State-owned Interstate andPrincipal Arterial Lane-miles byRoughness Category and Region.Because this information is collected bycontract every-other year, the valuesshown are from 2001, the latest yearavailable.

Overall, 85.5 percent of these pavementsare considered smooth and 14.5 percentare considered rough. Regions 3, 6 and 7have the highest percentage of Interstateand Principal Arterial lane-miles of verysmooth pavements. Region 11 has thehighest percentage of lane-miles of veryrough pavements.

Network-Level Pavement Needs

Treatment Categories

One of the objectives of the pavementcondition survey process is to classifyeach highway section surveyed into oneof five general treatment categories. Thefive general treatment categories are:

1. Do Nothing2. Preventive Maintenance (Non-

paving) - includes strategies such asjoint or crack sealing/filling.

3. Preventive Maintenance (Paving) -includes single-course (1-½")overlays.

4. Corrective Maintenance - applies toPCC pavements only and includestreatments such as resealing joints,patching slabs, and grinding.

5. Rehabilitation/Major Rehabilitation -

includes treatments intended to

extend the service life of a roadway

surface 15 years or more.

The treatment algorithms were developedby a panel of NYSDOT pavementexperts. The assumptions that underliethe treatment algorithms, and a list of thespecific treatments which comprise thegeneral treatment strategies are availableupon request.

Pavement Needs

Table 11 displays the results of thetreatment classification process by region.The percent of lanes miles in the DoNothing category is 10.9%, a slightimprovement from last year. However, theconverse is that almost 90% of thepavements on the State Highway Systemare candidates for some type ofmaintenance or rehab activity. Seventeenpercent of pavement (6,306 lane miles) isin the Rehab/Major Rehab category andalmost 10% (3,700 lane miles) of theState Highways are in need of preventivemaintenance paving.


Table 10

2001 Lane Miles of Interstates and Principal Arterials *by Roughness Category (in/mi) and Region

RegionVery

Smooth0 - 60

Smooth61 - 120

Fair121 - 170

Rough171 - 220

VeryRough> 220

Total

1 236 1,029 225 120 82 1,692

2 44 550 77 29 16 716

3 290 873 87 17 28 1,294

4 121 920 139 102 55 1,336

5 35 1,128 479 211 113 1,965

6 146 428 83 85 3 745

7 174 807 47 18 15 1,061

8 6 1,707 585 256 241 2,795

9 50 857 299 36 23 1,265

10 4 713 748 265 127 1,856

11 0 89 271 215 200 775

State 1,104 9,100 3,040 1,353 902 15,500

2001 Percent of Lane Miles of Interstates and Principal Arterialsby Roughness Category (in/mi) and Region

RegionVery

Smooth0 - 60

Smooth61 - 120

Fair121 - 170

Rough171 - 220

VeryRough> 220

Total

1 13.9% 60.8% 13.3% 7.1% 4.8% 100.0%

2 6.1% 76.8% 10.7% 4.1% 2.2% 100.0%

3 22.4% 67.5% 6.7% 1.3% 2.2% 100.0%

4 9.0% 68.9% 10.4% 7.6% 4.1% 100.0%

5 1.8% 57.4% 24.4% 10.7% 5.7% 100.0%

6 19.6% 57.5% 11.1% 11.4% 0.4% 100.0%

7 16.4% 76.1% 4.4% 1.7% 1.4% 100.0%

8 0.2% 61.1% 20.9% 9.2% 8.6% 100.0%

9 4.0% 67.7% 23.7% 2.8% 1.8% 100.0%

10 0.2% 38.4% 40.3% 14.3% 6.8% 100.0%

11 0.0% 11.5% 35.0% 27.8% 25.7% 100.0%

State 7.1% 58.7% 19.6% 8.7% 5.8% 100.0%

* State Highways only; Thruway not included


Table 11

State Highway System2002 Lane-Miles by Treatment Category

RegTotalLaneMiles

DoNothing

PreventiveMaintenance(Non-Paving)

PreventiveMaintenance

(Paving)

CorrectiveMaintenance Rehab/Major

Rehab

LaneMiles % Lane


Miles % LaneMiles %

1 4,761 431 9.0% 2,658 55.8% 293 6.2% 517 10.9% 862 18.1%

2 3,000 243 8.1% 1,886 62.9% 410 13.7% 94 3.1% 367 12.2%

3 3,446 495 14.4% 1,625 47.1% 465 13.5% 401 11.6% 460 13.4%

4 3,968 505 12.7% 1,668 42.0% 285 7.2% 244 6.2% 1,266 31.9%

5 3,719 547 14.7% 2,041 54.9% 155 4.2% 244 6.5% 732 19.7%

6 2,573 250 9.7% 1,200 46.6% 603 23.4% 133 5.2% 387 15.1%

7 3,409 355 10.4% 1,164 34.2% 662 19.4% 406 11.9% 822 24.1%

8 5,144 595 11.5% 3,394 66.0% 133 2.6% 333 6.5% 689 13.4%

9 3,793 500 13.2% 2,230 58.8% 260 6.8% 314 8.3% 489 12.9%

10 2,534 115 4.5% 1,669 65.9% 270 10.7% 266 10.5% 214 8.4%

11 791 9 1.2% 573 72.5% 121 15.2% 70 8.8% 18 2.3%

State 37,138 4,045 10.9% 20,109 54.2% 3,657 9.8% 3,021 8.1% 6,306 17.0%


Survey Quality Assurance Procedures

Annual Training Session

The success of Pavement Managementeffort depends on the ability to collectaccurate, consistent, and reliable data onpavement condition. The core of thePavement Condition Rating QualityAssurance effort is the Annual HighwayCondition Survey Training Sessionconducted each spring at the NYSDOTMain Office in Albany. Through classroomand field exercises, the regional ratingteams learn to distinguish the surfaceconditions and dominant distressfeatures.

The purpose of the classroom practicerating is to develop a consensus amongthe regional raters in their use of thecondition rating scales to determineappropriate surface condition ratings, andto help the raters gain confidence in theirpavement condition rating abilities.Following the in-house practice rating, theregional teams are taken on a field trip torate an additional 20 sections, for anapproximate total of 18 miles, specifically

designed to test the raters’ ability to usethe condition rating manual and developappropriate rating practices to ensurepavements are evaluated in a consistentand accurate fashion.

Double Scoring Effort

The double scoring effort consists of twoactivities: shadow scoring and boundaryscoring. Shadow scoring refers to theprocess whereby a team of experts fromthe Main Office independently rate asample of highways in each region toevaluate the consistency in ratingprovided by the regional teams.Approximately 2,000 sections totalingabout 1,500 centerline miles are ratedeach year by the Main Office Team.

Boundary scoring refers to the practice ofeach regional team rating a sample ofroadways in adjacent regions. Anadditional 600 sections or 700 centerlinemiles are double scored through theboundary scoring process. In all, over10% of the entire State System mileage isdouble scored to monitor the regionalcondition ratings for consistency andaccuracy.

Statistical Measures & Analysis

Several statistical measures areemployed to analyze the accuracy andconsistency of our condition surveyratings. These are:



• The Percent of Ratings Within +/-1 Scale Point

• The Average Scoring Error• The Absolute Scoring Difference

The Percent of Ratings Within+/- 1 Scale Point

One of the measures used to assess theaccuracy of the condition ratings is thepercent of sections rated within 1 point bythe two rating teams. Results from thedouble scoring efforts for the past fiveyears show that about 95% of all guestratings were within 1 scale point of thehostregion’sratings. These results showthe ratings have been conducted in amanner sufficiently consistent andaccurate to support network-levelanalyses and summaries.

The Average Scoring Error

The average scoring error is computedusing the formula shown below. Tocompute the average scoring error thedifferences in ratings provided by the hostand guest teams are summed for allsections surveyed and divided by the totalnumber of sections rated. These figuresprovide an average estimate of thedegree to which a region“over”or“under”rates relative to the Main Office or otherregion’steam. The average scoring errorstatistic provides a measure of thedirection of rating bias.

Average Scoring Error =

nj

1 (hi - gi)nj i = 1

hi = Host ratingsgi = Guest ratingsnj = Number of sect ions

evaluated in Region J

The Absolute Scoring Difference

The absolute rating difference statisticidentifies where rating differences existand the magnitude of rating error. It iscomputed by summing the absolute valueof the rating difference between guestand host ratings and dividing this value bythe total number of sections surveyed.This is useful in providing a reference toevaluate network-level conditionestimates. In other words, the averagescoring error per section provides thedirection of rating bias, while the absolutescoring difference provides the magnitude



of the scoring error.

Table 12 presents the results of the 2002double scoring effort. Overall, the resultsshow continued rating consistency with96.8% of the rating judgments by theguest rating teams within one point of thehost’scondition ratings. Over the last fiveyears, this value has ranged from a low of93.6% to a high of 97.0%, and averaged95.5%. Differences of greater than onepoint have remained consistent over thepast few years, and are generallyindicative of repair work undertakenbetween rating trips by regional and MainOffice teams. The absolute ratingdifference statewide of 0.40 is consistentwith previous year’s results as well.

Figure 2 presents the average scoringerror by region and statewide. The

average scoring error per sectionstatewide is 0.05, which indicates the hostratings are on average slightly higher

than guest ratings. On a regional basis,Region 11 showed the greatest variationwith -0.42 average scoring error, withRegion 5 next at 0.29 average error in thedouble scored sections.

The double scoring results shows that the2002 rating process has producedreliable, accurate and consistentpavement condition ratings. Thesefindings demonstrate the benefits ofcarefully designed quality assuranceprocedures utilizing intensive training andmonitoring of rating procedures, andshow the 2002 NYSDOT pavementcondition ratings are sufficiently accuratefor network-level summaries andanalyses.


Table 12 Figure 2

2002 Double Scoring Results Average Scoring Error

RegionPercent

+/-1 Point

AverageScoring

Error

AbsoluteScoring

Difference

1 94.3% 0.26 0.51

2 98.6% -0.06 0.30

3 98.5% -0.13 0.49

4 98.8% -0.10 0.31

5 96.6% 0.29 0.43

6 96.1% 0.06 0.31

7 98.0% -0.22 0.35

8 96.7% 0.05 0.46

9 95.0% 0.26 0.37

10 96.4% -0.03 0.40

11 100.0% -0.42 0.49

State 96.8% 0.05 0.40

Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways · 2008. 8. 23. · Pavement Condition Rating Process...

Documents

Transcript of Pavement Condition of New York’s Highways · 2008. 8. 23. · Pavement Condition Rating Process...